Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[shunyadragon]

What does that mean?
What is a "natural cause" ?

Something that naturally happens?
Why does it happen?

Natural causes and, of course, natural happens are simply the product of Natural Laws and natural processes as natural causes. Why and how should this be any other different ex[explanation from what we observe happens naturally in our physical existence?

Everything we objectively observe in our physical existence has a predictable natural cause based on the Laws of Nature. The physical How? and Why? is Natural Laws.

 

[F1fan]

So you are blinded by your religious bias because you have “educated” (indoctrinated ) into evolution and billions of years.

What was the first living creature?
Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?
What was the code length if RNA or DNA?
Where did it come into being?

Creationists have no arguments. They aren't serious in debate.

The odd thing is that you creationists should be happy to accept and advocate for evolution because it gets your God off the hook for creating cancer. Your beliefs put all blame directly onto your God.

 

[shunyadragon]

The research in post #620 is important in the future of developing the specific properties of physical evolution in abiogenesis into the complexity of the first life and increase in complexity in evolution but in some ways, it is nothing new. The process of abiogenesis and increased complexity of evolution is not a random process of millions of possibilities of combinations of molecules and atoms. Anyone who takes organic chemistry in college, as lacking the education of @YoursTrue and @Ebionite, would realize there are limited possibilities that organic chemicals can combine to form more complex chemicals. If one takes Genetics courses one would realize there are limited ways the Amino acids can combine to form RNA and then DNA.

This does not conclude that the process of abiogenesis from natural organic chemistry such as Amino Acids to form the first replicable RNA is easily resolved. This research and the advancing knowledge of Genetics is the basis for the solution of how abiogenesis can take place. It is not impossible.

It also as bottom-line research it further demonstrates how the increased complexity takes place in terms of 'Assembly Theory' of physical chemistry.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The research in post #620 is important in the future of developing the specific properties of physical evolution in abiogenesis into the complexity of the first life and increase in complexity in evolution but in some ways, it is nothing new. The process of abiogenesis and increased complexity of evolution is not a random process of millions of possibilities of combinations of molecules and atoms. Anyone who takes organic chemistry in college, as lacking the education of @YoursTrue and @Ebionite, would realize there are limited possibilities that organic chemicals can combine to form more complex chemicals. If one takes Genetics courses one would realize there are limited ways the Amino acids can combine to form RNA and then DNA.

This does not conclude that the process of abiogenesis from natural organic chemistry such as Amino Acids to form the first replicable RNA is easily resolved. This research and the advancing knowledge of Genetics is the basis for the solution of how abiogenesis can take place. It is not impossible.

It also as bottom-line research it further demonstrates how the increased complexity takes place in terms of 'Assembly Theory' of physical chemistry.

But there is no evidence or actual description of the first living creature, just assumptions and unproven conjectures.
I have already shown it was impossible, so read Genesis 1 for the truth.
BTW, you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy with exact timing and details made about 2000 years ago,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 2:7

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there is no evidence or actual description of the first living creature, just assumptions and unproven conjectures.
I have already shown it was impossible, so read Genesis 1 for the truth.
BTW, you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy with exact timing and details made about 2000 years ago,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 2:7

I will be serious here. We do not need to know what the first creature was. So why would it matter if we do not know the details of it?


You ask silly questions all of the time, but you can never answer the serious questions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I will be serious here. We do not need to know what the first creature was. So why would it matter if we do not know the details of it?


You ask silly questions all of the time, but you can never answer the serious questions.

Of course you do, Without a first living creature there is no theory of evolution.
I no the utter desperation that evolutionists must have to run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course you do, Without a first living creature there is no theory of evolution.

Without rubber, there can be no ball. But that does not mean that you need to know where the rubber came from in order to observe and understand how a ball rolls down a hill.

This isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Without rubber, there can be no ball. But that does not mean that you need to know where the rubber came from in order to observe and understand how a ball rolls down a hill.

This isn't that difficult to understand.

Your analogy is faulty.

What was the first living creature? Please be as detailed as possible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your analogy is faulty.

In what way? Be specific.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have to know what the first living thing was in order to observe how living things change over time today, in the exact same way you don't have to know how rubber is made in order to observe how a rubber ball rolls down a hill. These things are perfectly analagous.

What was the first living creature? Please be as detailed as possible.

Most likely minute microbes in deep-sea vents, and simple self-replicating proteins before them. At which point one or the other can be considered "living" is more a more complex question.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In what way? Be specific.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have to know what the first living thing was in order to observe how living things change over time today, in the exact same way you don't have to know how rubber is made in order to observe how a rubber ball rolls down a hill. These things are perfectly analagous.


Most likely minute microbes in deep-sea vents, and simple self-replicating proteins before them. At which point one or the other can be considered "living" is more a more complex question.

But you have a false assumption about the age of the Earth, and that makes all reasonings about evolution false.
Not only that, abiogenesis is not the only impossibility for evolution, each step of evolution from the first living creature to mankind is also false.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But you have a false assumption about the age of the Earth, and that makes all reasonings about evolution false.

You've changed the subject completely, but alas.

My beliefs about the age of the earth are influenced by the evidence we have at our disposal. If you have compelling evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

Not only that, abiogenesis is not the only impossibility for evolution, each step of evolution from the first living creature to mankind is also false.

Firstly, abiogenesis is not an evolutionary step. It's possible for evolution to be true, even if abiogenesis isn't.

Secondly, from what we know, abiogenesis is not impossible. In fact, we observe living forms emerge from non-living matter every time a living thing reproduces.

You've not really formulated an argument here, so there is very little for me to respond to other than re-stating my position. Do you have anything more substantive?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You've changed the subject completely, but alas.

My beliefs about the age of the earth are influenced by the evidence we have at our disposal. If you have compelling evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.


Firstly, abiogenesis is not an evolutionary step. It's possible for evolution to be true, even if abiogenesis isn't.

Secondly, from what we know, abiogenesis is not impossible. In fact, we observe living forms emerge from non-living matter every time a living thing reproduces.

You've not really formulated an argument here, so there is very little for me to respond to other than re-stating my position. Do you have anything more substantive?

Your attempt to run and hide from abiogenesis is proof that you have nothing to stand on except your false religious beliefs .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your attempt to run and hide from abiogenesis is proof that you have nothing to stand on except your false religious beliefs .

I've made arguments. Do you want to address those arguments or just ignore them because you can't refute them?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I've made arguments. Do you want to address those arguments or just ignore them because you can't refute them?

I have refuted your illogical arguments already .

What was the first living creature?
Was it based on DNA, RNA, or proteins or a mix of these?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have refuted your illogical arguments already .

No, you just called my analogy "faulty" and said I have a "false assumption". That's not a refutation.

I, meanwhile, have refuted your arguments.

Do you have anything more substantive than this?

What was the first living creature?

I answered that question already:

Post 629:
Most likely minute microbes in deep-sea vents, and simple self-replicating proteins before them. At which point one or the other can be considered "living" is more a more complex question.

I don't know why you're saying these things without reading my posts.

Was it based on DNA, RNA, or proteins or a mix of these?

Evidence suggests RNA, as it possibly pre-dates DNA. But it's not clear yet.

SOURCE: The Origins of the RNA World.

I'm not a microbiologist, however. You might get a better answer from them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you just called my analogy "faulty" and said I have a "false assumption". That's not a refutation.

I, meanwhile, have refuted your arguments.

Do you have anything more substantive than this?


I answered that question already:

Post 629:
Most likely minute microbes in deep-sea vents, and simple self-replicating proteins before them. At which point one or the other can be considered "living" is more a more complex question.

I don't know why you're saying these things without reading my posts.


Evidence suggests RNA, as it possibly pre-dates DNA. But it's no clear yet.

SOURCE: The Origins of the RNA World.

I'm not a microbiologist, however. You might get a better answer from them.

So all you have are impossible fairy tales.

Replication is not going to lead to the first living creature.

what was the first living creature? What is the official answer?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So all you have are impossible fairy tales.

Please provide an argument.

Replication is not going to lead to the first living creature.

Replication is a necessary precursor to living structures. In many ways, self-replication is THE defining trait of living systems.

What was the first living creature? What is the official answer?

I have answered this question twice now, I will not answer it again.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But there is no evidence or actual description of the first living creature, just assumptions and unproven conjectures.

You have inadvertently given a reason as to a longer existence than 6000 years - after all, why would there be any evidence after three or four billion years have passed since the first forms of life existed?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because matter behaves according to the natural laws..

..and why are they as they are?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Everything we objectively observe in our physical existence has a predictable natural cause based on the Laws of Nature. The physical How? and Why? is Natural Laws.

Yes, of course .. it is fundamental.
..but where did they come from?